Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & Commerce Committee
Dear all, there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and a hearing by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (held on Dec 14th -- i.e. today). Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is included below. Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau Brendler, NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent to the Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be sent via two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller. Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user input in ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal vote, but it will be archived in our ALAC correspondence. We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred Upton, should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be one of the witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to see what gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige. Kind regards, Olivier On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote :
An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber Sterling of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines.
There are two different hearings
1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation <http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8) After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able to send comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14
2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee <http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> (to be held Dec 14) After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be able to send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting)
So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there before Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who participated in the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House hearing this Wednesday.
We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House committee after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the content of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the Senate committee.
Thanks OCL I wonder though as you have gone to the second page with the layout is it worthwhile inserting the ALAC and At-Large Structure diagram as a easy to read and understand graphic on the last (2nd ) page below the signature line as a form of 'appendix' You know pictures are worth a <insert ###> of words rule... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 15 December 2011 04:00, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear all,
there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and a hearing by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (held on Dec 14th -- i.e. today). Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is included below.
Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau Brendler, NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent to the Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be sent via two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller.
Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user input in ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal vote, but it will be archived in our ALAC correspondence.
We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred Upton, should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be one of the witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to see what gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote :
An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber Sterling of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines.
There are two different hearings
1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation <http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8) After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able to send comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14
2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee < http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> (to be held Dec 14) After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be able to send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting)
So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there before Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who participated in the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House hearing this Wednesday.
We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House committee after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the content of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the Senate committee.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
On 14 December 2011 12:09, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks OCL I wonder though as you have gone to the second page with the layout is it worthwhile inserting the ALAC and At-Large Structure diagram as a easy to read and understand graphic on the last (2nd ) page below the signature line as a form of 'appendix' You know pictures are worth a <insert ###> of words rule...
I'm not sure that such an introductory letter needs much explanation, let alone diagrams. We're simply indicating "A forum to represent the public interest within ICANN currently exists, if you're genuinely interested in hearing that PoV". The mere awareness -- especially if we get on a mailing list to participate in future solicitations of comment -- is a major step. If a Congressperson wants to peek inside the sausage factory we can give offer as much (or as little) detail as necessary. Besides, this is the US Congress within an amosphere of political exceptionalism. Any interest in the geographical diversity of At-Large (IMO) would be accidental. - Evan
Thanks. I'm concerned that this does not specifically reference ALAC's statement on the program which is the subject of the hearings. The letter might lead with "At-Large did not (was not asked/invited?) to testify, and was not referenced by Pritz in the list of constituent groups who contribute to ICANN consensus. However, our previous current stand on the new gTLD program is/can be found..." Comments about Dyson's statements are important to correct the record, but the message should be on point with the subject matter. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:00 PM To: <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "ALAC Working List" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: "ICANN AtLarge Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee
Dear all,
there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and a hearing by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (held on Dec 14th -- i.e. today). Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is included below.
Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau Brendler, NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent to the Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be sent via two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller.
Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user input in ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal vote, but it will be archived in our ALAC correspondence.
We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred Upton, should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be one of the witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to see what gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote :
An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber Sterling of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines.
There are two different hearings
1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation <http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8) After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able to send comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14
2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee
<http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> (to be held Dec 14) After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be able to send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting)
So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there before Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who participated in the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House hearing this Wednesday.
We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House committee after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the content of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the Senate committee.
On 14 December 2011 12:20, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com <gbruen@knujon.com> wrote: I'm concerned that this does not specifically reference ALAC's statement on
the program which is the subject of the hearings.
Hi Garth, This was a matter of timing. We were not invited to participate (at least that I am aware of), and only found out at the last moment. That we've been able to submit something useful to just get their attention is an accomplishment. I have heard in some circles that these Congressional hearings are just political grandstanding, and that the official position of the US government (at least as expressed by Larry Strickling) defends the multi-stakeholder model and the current process. Supporters of new gTLDs have interpreted this as support for the ICANN status quo, and that those parts of the community who did not "get their way" in the program should just stop whining and let the gTLD goldrush roll on. I would submit, OTOH, that ALAC (and the public interest in general) was never really part of the community that pressed for or bought into the new gTLD program, its early fundamental flaws were deeply set before we were even allowed to be involved. Our participation, this late in the program's evolution, can best be characterized as damage mitigation; we have tried, without major success(*), to influence some of its worst harms. (*) - On applicant support there was partial success in that there was any movement at all. But the major issue of fee reduction separate from any ICANN "fund" -- a cornerstone of the JAS multi-stakeholder recommendation -- was explicitly rejected by the Board opaquely and without explanation. On the issue of morality based objections, despite hundreds of community person-hours invested in the "Rec6" Working group, the situation actually has worsened. We have also tried to blunt the worst excesses of the trademark lobby -- while appreciating the end-user benefits of reasonable name protection -- but have had negligible impact here. On the balance, our influence has been net-positive but just barely. The letter might lead with "At-Large did not (was not asked/invited?)
to testify, and was not referenced by Pritz in the list of constituent groups who contribute to ICANN consensus. However, our previous current stand on the new gTLD program is/can be found..."
While I certainly agree with the sentiment, we did not have anywhere near the time needed to craft this properly, and I'm not sure it would have any effect if the purpose of this is to grandstand without actually changing US policy. A well worded assertion that "we exist, please call us if you really want an end-user PoV" was all that was reasonably possible given the limits at hand. - Evan
Yes, the real business of congress does not happen in front of the cameras. The consensus is to move forward with the privatization and internationalization of the Internet and not reassert U.S. "control." However, there is significant disagreement within U.S. agencies about the details. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission chair has called the plan a "disaster." The commerce committee majority position paper was strongly-worded, and while these are often politically-driven there is concern among various political stripes. Most law enforcement agencies in the U.S. are very concerned. Others have mentioned this before, but anyone who has concerns about the program is being painted as "anti-new gTLD" and that's not accurate. I reread the ALAC Mexico position and it is clear that this well thought out letter does not oppose the program but picks apart problematic details. I think this is exactly what the committee members meant yesterday when they said the plan is "not ready for prime-time" (however everything on US prime-time is trash now, so I'm not sure if this is a useful cliché). I have heard "ALAC's advice was ignored again" enough times to be very concerned when it seems to be happening again. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:54 AM To: "ICANN At-Large list" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: "NARALO Discussion List" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy &CommerceCommittee
On 14 December 2011 12:20, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com <gbruen@knujon.com> wrote:
I'm concerned that this does not specifically reference ALAC's statement on
the program which is the subject of the hearings.
Hi Garth,
This was a matter of timing. We were not invited to participate (at least that I am aware of), and only found out at the last moment. That we've been able to submit something useful to just get their attention is an accomplishment.
I have heard in some circles that these Congressional hearings are just political grandstanding, and that the official position of the US government (at least as expressed by Larry Strickling) defends the multi-stakeholder model and the current process. Supporters of new gTLDs have interpreted this as support for the ICANN status quo, and that those parts of the community who did not "get their way" in the program should just stop whining and let the gTLD goldrush roll on.
I would submit, OTOH, that ALAC (and the public interest in general) was never really part of the community that pressed for or bought into the new gTLD program, its early fundamental flaws were deeply set before we were even allowed to be involved. Our participation, this late in the program's evolution, can best be characterized as damage mitigation; we have tried, without major success(*), to influence some of its worst harms.
(*) - On applicant support there was partial success in that there was any movement at all. But the major issue of fee reduction separate from any ICANN "fund" -- a cornerstone of the JAS multi-stakeholder recommendation -- was explicitly rejected by the Board opaquely and without explanation. On the issue of morality based objections, despite hundreds of community person-hours invested in the "Rec6" Working group, the situation actually has worsened. We have also tried to blunt the worst excesses of the trademark lobby -- while appreciating the end-user benefits of reasonable name protection -- but have had negligible impact here. On the balance, our influence has been net-positive but just barely.
The letter might lead with "At-Large did not (was not asked/invited?)
to testify, and was not referenced by Pritz in the list of constituent groups who contribute to ICANN consensus. However, our previous current stand on the new gTLD program is/can be found..."
While I certainly agree with the sentiment, we did not have anywhere near the time needed to craft this properly, and I'm not sure it would have any effect if the purpose of this is to grandstand without actually changing US policy. A well worded assertion that "we exist, please call us if you really want an end-user PoV" was all that was reasonably possible given the limits at hand.
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 15 December 2011 09:59, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com <gbruen@knujon.com>wrote:
I have heard "ALAC's advice was ignored again" enough times to be very concerned when it seems to be happening again.
It's been a long, sometimes ugly, but very real evolutionary process. Since I've been involved in ALAC I have seen progress first-hand from "ignored" to "heard but rejected" Getting even to this point has required significant maturation, both of At-Large itself and the rest of ICANN's willingness to interface with us. There have certainly been many frustrations, but also very real achievements and milestones to illustrate the changes. The ongoing evolution from "heard" to "heeded" is happening -- but we have to keep at it. - Evan
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
policy. A well worded assertion that "we exist, please call us if you really want an end-user PoV" was all that was reasonably possible given the limits at hand.
+1. And given the situation, the best judgment, it is!!! - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
Hi Olivier, I have blogged the final version of the letter at http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2779 I have also made a short url for the letter itself - it is http://bit.ly/alac-dyson You may recall that at the NARALO showcase in San Francisco I spoke out about the inaccessibility of the organization to potential recruits - in terms of a simple landing page where folks could sign up, or respond on issues. That situation is unresolved. j On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Dear all,
there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and a hearing by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (held on Dec 14th -- i.e. today). Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is included below.
Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau Brendler, NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent to the Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be sent via two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller.
Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user input in ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal vote, but it will be archived in our ALAC correspondence.
We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred Upton, should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be one of the witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to see what gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote :
An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber Sterling of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines.
There are two different hearings
1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation <http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8) After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able to send comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14
2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee < http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> (to be held Dec 14) After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be able to send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting)
So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there before Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who participated in the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House hearing this Wednesday.
We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House committee after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the content of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the Senate committee.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
Agreed. This is important. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Joly MacFie" <joly@punkcast.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:14 PM To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee
Hi Olivier,
I have blogged the final version of the letter at http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2779
I have also made a short url for the letter itself - it is http://bit.ly/alac-dyson
You may recall that at the NARALO showcase in San Francisco I spoke out about the inaccessibility of the organization to potential recruits - in terms of a simple landing page where folks could sign up, or respond on issues. That situation is unresolved.
j
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Dear all,
there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and a hearing by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (held on Dec 14th -- i.e. today). Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is included below.
Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau Brendler, NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent to the Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be sent via two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller.
Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user input in ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal vote, but it will be archived in our ALAC correspondence.
We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred Upton, should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be one of the witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to see what gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote :
An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber Sterling of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines.
There are two different hearings
1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation <http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8) After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able to send comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14
2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee < http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> (to be held Dec 14) After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be able to send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting)
So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there before Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who participated in the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House hearing this Wednesday.
We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House committee after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the content of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the Senate committee.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
participants (6)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Evan Leibovitch -
Garth Bruen at Knujon.com -
Joly MacFie -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond